Athletes get nothing back financially when compared to what the schools get in comparison. Schools that have an Athletic department that bring significant revenue should be mandated to treat their student-athletes as employees who have signed a legally binding document.

Is that different than any employee, anywhere? The university and coaches will make not one less penny of tv revenue if the "fair share" whiners, regardless their "talent" never arrived on campus. They wouldn't be missed. No University loses tv revenue based on contract because a particular athlete cannot play. They are not even a remote part of the revenue stream, it would simply be "next man up, let's fill some air time."

The full scholarship athletes making much more than most AND a bigger piece of the pie than most, regardless how much the company and "CEO" are getting. $200,000 is pretty good over 4 years for a part-time job, let alone for an 18 year old kid.

Don't like the contract, don't take the contract. Of course, it's fair game to argue for more as it is to argue against.

If the whining continues, and athletes continue to demand more than any other campus student, my preference would be to kick all the non-compliant sports to the curb, execute them out of the university system and lower those addendums to the tuitions.

As has been noted, very few of these programs are self sustaining and the primary purpose of the institutions isn't sports. If the sport is viable, it will retain in free market. It may even become bigger as is Track in Europe. Mid-markets would get mid-market feeder teams, as in baseball. Over-all, a better system without athletes coming off as pompous, entitled whiners.

Athletes get nothing back financially when compared to what the schools get in comparison. Schools that have an Athletic department that bring significant revenue should be mandated to treat their student-athletes as employees who have signed a legally binding document.

So the 12 lacrosse players get nothing financially from the free $200k education compared to what the school makes from them. Or the 6 gymnasts or 18 hockey players, or the 10 soccer players. Ever been to a college swim practice? What kind of tv contract covers those 10 full scholarships a school gives to swimmers? Big time NCAA athletic departments can make big money but the costs are just as big.

So the 12 lacrosse players get nothing financially from the free $200k education compared to what the school makes from them. Or the 6 gymnasts or 18 hockey players, or the 10 soccer players. Ever been to a college swim practice? What kind of tv contract covers those 10 full scholarships a school gives to swimmers? Big time NCAA athletic departments can make big money but the costs are just as big.

Most schools don't give full scholarships to those sports. At least not to many players. The elite players may get a full scholarship but it is rare because they don't have enough scholarships for every student athlete. Most schools use partial scholarships for many of the non revenue sports. So in reality your 12 lacrosse players, in many situations, are splitting 6 scholarships. I do agree with you though that most of the student athletes are not going pro so they do get a lot of value for their scholarships.

So the 12 lacrosse players get nothing financially from the free $200k education compared to what the school makes from them. Or the 6 gymnasts or 18 hockey players, or the 10 soccer players. Ever been to a college swim practice? What kind of tv contract covers those 10 full scholarships a school gives to swimmers? Big time NCAA athletic departments can make big money but the costs are just as big.

Every one of those programs you mention make zero money, and actually cost the school money. Not one of those work in the black.

Big Time NCAA creates major,major Revenue and major major profit, the only people not getting very rich off that are the actual workers.

I did not mean to say there is not a value in a scholarship, it just does not match up to the schools take in financially in the major sports. That is known and no debate needed.

Most schools don't give full scholarships to those sports. At least not to many players. The elite players may get a full scholarship but it is rare because they don't have enough scholarships for every student athlete. Most schools use partial scholarships for many of the non revenue sports. So in reality your 12 lacrosse players, in many situations, are splitting 6 scholarships. I do agree with you though that most of the student athletes are not going pro so they do get a lot of value for their scholarships.

This is true, that is why Spirit does not even understand the conversation.

It has nothing to do about going pro. It is purely about the books of the major universities and how well their employees are treated. It is a shame the courts did not agree (due to a technicality) that athletes should be paid workers. We will see that come up again and overturned.

Every one of those programs you mention make zero money, and actually cost the school money. Not one of those work in the black.

Big Time NCAA creates major,major Revenue and major major profit, the only people not getting very rich off that are the actual workers.

I did not mean to say there is not a value in a scholarship, it just does not match up to the schools take in financially in the major sports. That is known and no debate needed.

That was my point. No one ever thinks of all the kids on scholarship in sports that generate no revenue. They still attend for free. This is a huge drain on the millions coming in from 2-3 sports. The money going out each year for scholarships alone from a D1 NCAA school can be in the 8 figures. Ad in all the other costs and that money coming in gets cut down pretty quick. I'm not saying there is no profit but it's not as high as some think.

Most schools don't give full scholarships to those sports. At least not to many players. The elite players may get a full scholarship but it is rare because they don't have enough scholarships for every student athlete. Most schools use partial scholarships for many of the non revenue sports. So in reality your 12 lacrosse players, in many situations, are splitting 6 scholarships. I do agree with you though that most of the student athletes are not going pro so they do get a lot of value for their scholarships.

I was listing the NCAA scholarships a school can give. True most will divide them between players but they still are rated as a scholarship even if it goes to two athletes.

That was my point. No one ever thinks of all the kids on scholarship in sports that generate no revenue. They still attend for free. This is a huge drain on the millions coming in from 2-3 sports. The money going out each year for scholarships alone from a D1 NCAA school can be in the 8 figures. Ad in all the other costs and that money coming in gets cut down pretty quick. I'm not saying there is no profit but it's not as high as some think.

I wasn't saying all scholarship athletes were free, only that the amount of scholarships were being paid. What the report in your link shows is exactly what I was saying. The costs are $166m and the revenue is $170m. Most people only see the $170m and never see the $166m.

From the article:
"Pay and benefits alone accounted for $61.8 million during the 2015-16 school year, triple the amount spent on athletic scholarships ($19.2 million)."

Why are so many people living very fat and happy on the back of athletes? Who are taking all the risks, but not being compensated close to equally. This will change by law in 5 - 10 years.

Then the solution to your happiness is to remove athletics or academic recognition from these institutions.

These are not "workers." They are students. They do no work for the University, though like any students, their actions and their success can enrich the University, or not as in most cases.

Your concern, though I'm gathering it's a front for your real desire, is that some are getting rich. But you don't propose a formula for University athletics that would prevent that. Why not?

Academic salaries and compensation for public Universities are subject to Board of Regents. There are limitations. The same could be accomplished by the NCAA on the athletic side, limiting the compensation of those involved in coaching and administrating athletics and then diverting additional to more fully fund non-revenue sports and academics.

But that wouldn't meet your real agenda would it, to enrich the athlete. The athlete doesn't contribute to the University in any role other than theirs as student. Scholarship is the only remediation they should receive or we risk eroding the function of a University.

These are not company teams, the students on the teams are not employees. Better to remove athletics entirely than create a more equal that thou system amongst the students.